Last visit was: 20 Apr 2026, 17:28 It is currently 20 Apr 2026, 17:28
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
EtaCarnia
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
43
 [14]
Given Kudos: 75
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
12
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,437
Own Kudos:
79,367
 [5]
Given Kudos: 484
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,437
Kudos: 79,367
 [5]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
EtaCarnia
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 75
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Budhaditya_Saha
Joined: 01 Aug 2023
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 43
Own Kudos:
11
 [1]
Given Kudos: 30
Posts: 43
Kudos: 11
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
How is E the correct answer and not A please explain.
User avatar
EtaCarnia
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
43
 [1]
Given Kudos: 75
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Posts: 73
Kudos: 43
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Need help with the analysis of this question.
User avatar
Sai_Challa
Joined: 16 Aug 2023
Last visit: 28 Feb 2026
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I was juggling between D & E where, the one talks about baselining of how much reduction is needed, and the other talks about the actual reason leading to reduction in plastic waste. Hence, E is more essential for the argument to hold true.
User avatar
Prakriti_sharma
Joined: 06 Jun 2024
Last visit: 01 Dec 2025
Posts: 1
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Location: India
Posts: 1
Kudos: 1
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Assumption is an unstated belief or premise that is taken for granted as true in order to support an argument or conclusion

For this, You have to try to negate each and every option.

option E says no other factor than the plastic bag fee was the reason behind the change this means that if there were any other reasons then the whole decision of the govt would've been ill informed and won't be same as the ones in another city hence the claim in the para won't stand. so if we negate this option saying that there were other factors including public awareness campaigns then the paragraph would be wrong, making this the assumption.
EtaCarnia
Need help in understanding the reason for the correct answer please.
User avatar
EtaCarnia
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 75
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Prakriti_sharma
Assumption is an unstated belief or premise that is taken for granted as true in order to support an argument or conclusion

For this, You have to try to negate each and every option.

option E says no other factor than the plastic bag fee was the reason behind the change this means that if there were any other reasons then the whole decision of the govt would've been ill informed and won't be same as the ones in another city hence the claim in the para won't stand. so if we negate this option saying that there were other factors including public awareness campaigns then the paragraph would be wrong, making this the assumption.
EtaCarnia
Need help in understanding the reason for the correct answer please.
I did trying to negate each option. at the end i was confused between A,B and E. To me all 3 of them looked essential. Couldn't eliminate A and B.
User avatar
wang3022
Joined: 10 Jul 2025
Last visit: 01 Sep 2025
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
Posts: 4
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
man I really feel like A should be right.

Are you saying if they said some consumers instead of most consumers A would be right?
User avatar
Jujustrollss
Joined: 25 Jul 2024
Last visit: 04 Feb 2026
Posts: 9
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 27
Posts: 9
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Karishma,

How did we arrive at the understanding that in option (c), retail stores do not need to comply fully but only to a 'large extent'? It has not been discussed in the passage and to get a comparable percentage of reduction in plastic waste, would strict adherence to the new policy not be necessary? I was under the impression that a strict adherence would be key to reduce the plastic waste as discussed and hence why I choose option (c) over option (e)

KarishmaB
EtaCarnia
A city's government has decided to impose a fee on single-use plastic bags at retail stores, arguing that this will significantly reduce plastic waste. A similar policy implemented in another city led to a 40% reduction in plastic bag usage within a year. Officials claim that since consumer behavior is similar across cities, their city should expect a comparable reduction in plastic waste.

Which of the following must be assumed for the argument to be logically valid?

(A) The fee imposed on plastic bags will be high enough to deter most consumers from purchasing them.
(B) Retail stores in the city will comply fully with the policy and not find ways to distribute plastic bags without charging the mandated fee.
(C) The availability of alternative packaging materials, such as paper or reusable bags, will not lead to an increase in overall waste production.
(D) Consumers in the city are not already using fewer plastic bags than those in the city where the policy was previously implemented.
(E) Factors other than the plastic bag fee, such as public awareness campaigns or environmental policies, did not cause the reduction in the other city.

The question is tricky though fair. One could have fixated on (B), then moved on to (D) to finally settle on (E). Once you read (E), you know it is definitely (E).

(A) The fee imposed on plastic bags will be high enough to deter most consumers from purchasing them.

We don't need "most" (which means more than 50%) consumers to be deterred. The other city saw a 40% reduction. We are expecting a similar reduction. So less than "most" is fine.

(B) Retail stores in the city will comply fully with the policy and not find ways to distribute plastic bags without charging the mandated fee.

The problem here is the word "fully". We don't need them to comply fully. We need them to comply to a large extent.

(C) The availability of alternative packaging materials, such as paper or reusable bags, will not lead to an increase in overall waste production.


We are talking about "comparable reduction in plastic waste". Other waste is beyond our scope.

(D) Consumers in the city are not already using fewer plastic bags than those in the city where the policy was previously implemented.

Trap answer - even if the consumers are already using fewer plastic bags than the other city, it doesn't mean the usage cannot further decrease. It is possible, say, that the fee causes a reduction in the use of plastic bags. We are looking for around 40% reduction from its current value - whatever the current value may be.

(E) Factors other than the plastic bag fee, such as public awareness campaigns or environmental policies, did not cause the reduction in the other city.

Correct. What if the fee had no role to play in the decrease in usage in the other city? We are basing our plan on what happened in the other city, but what if awareness campaigns led to the reduction? We are assuming that the fee was responsible for reduction and not something else.
Hence answer is (E)

Answer (E)

User avatar
Tumbler
Joined: 05 Sep 2025
Last visit: 22 Oct 2025
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 18
Schools: GWU (S)
Schools: GWU (S)
Posts: 5
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There is more than 1 correct answer ! Explain the whole thing using negation technique
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 11 Apr 2026
Posts: 5,632
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 707
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,632
Kudos: 33,427
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Tumbler
There is more than 1 correct answer ! Explain the whole thing using negation technique
Tumbler Here's how I'd approach it:

The Argument's Logic:
  • Evidence: City X implemented a plastic bag fee → \(40\%\) reduction
  • Premise: Consumer behavior is similar across cities
  • Conclusion: Our city should expect a comparable reduction

Applying Negation to Each Choice:

(A) The fee will NOT be high enough to deter most consumers
Does this destroy the argument? Not necessarily. The argument references a "similar policy" to the one that worked. The fee level is implied to be similar. This doesn't destroy the core logic. Not necessary.

(B) Retail stores will NOT comply fully and will find ways to distribute bags without charging
Does this destroy the argument? This seems damaging, but the argument compares to another city where the policy was implemented. We assume similar implementation conditions. While compliance matters, it's not the fundamental assumption the argument rests on. Not the credited answer.

(C) Alternative materials WILL lead to an increase in overall waste
Does this destroy the argument? No. The conclusion is about "plastic waste" specifically, not overall waste. Even if total waste increases, plastic waste could still decrease by \(40\%\). Not necessary.

(D) Consumers ARE already using fewer plastic bags than those in the other city
Does this destroy the argument? This seems problematic – if they're already using fewer bags, maybe they can't achieve the same reduction. However, "comparable reduction" could mean a similar percentage reduction from their current level. The argument already states "consumer behavior is similar," which addresses baseline similarity. Not the core assumption.

(E) Other factors DID cause the reduction (not the fee itself)
Does this destroy the argument? YES, completely! If the fee wasn't the cause of the \(40\%\) reduction in City X – if it was actually due to awareness campaigns, other environmental policies, or unrelated factors – then implementing just the fee in the new city won't produce the same results. The entire argument collapses because the causal link is broken.

Answer: (E)

Why This Feels Tricky:

Options (B) and (D) are strengtheners – they make the argument better but aren't strictly necessary for the logic to hold. The argument already implies similar implementation ("similar policy") and similar starting conditions ("similar consumer behavior").

Option (E) is different: it addresses causation, which is the foundation of the argument. The argument uses City X's experience to predict City Y's outcome. This only works if the fee caused the reduction in City X.

Key Distinction: Necessary assumptions are the minimum required for the argument to work. Strengtheners make it more convincing but aren't essential to the basic logic.

I hope this is clear enough now.
User avatar
Tumbler
Joined: 05 Sep 2025
Last visit: 22 Oct 2025
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 18
Schools: GWU (S)
Schools: GWU (S)
Posts: 5
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thankyou! It was helpful 😊😍
egmat

Tumbler Here's how I'd approach it:

The Argument's Logic:
  • Evidence: City X implemented a plastic bag fee → \(40\%\) reduction
  • Premise: Consumer behavior is similar across cities
  • Conclusion: Our city should expect a comparable reduction

Applying Negation to Each Choice:

(A) The fee will NOT be high enough to deter most consumers
Does this destroy the argument? Not necessarily. The argument references a "similar policy" to the one that worked. The fee level is implied to be similar. This doesn't destroy the core logic. Not necessary.

(B) Retail stores will NOT comply fully and will find ways to distribute bags without charging
Does this destroy the argument? This seems damaging, but the argument compares to another city where the policy was implemented. We assume similar implementation conditions. While compliance matters, it's not the fundamental assumption the argument rests on. Not the credited answer.

(C) Alternative materials WILL lead to an increase in overall waste
Does this destroy the argument? No. The conclusion is about "plastic waste" specifically, not overall waste. Even if total waste increases, plastic waste could still decrease by \(40\%\). Not necessary.

(D) Consumers ARE already using fewer plastic bags than those in the other city
Does this destroy the argument? This seems problematic – if they're already using fewer bags, maybe they can't achieve the same reduction. However, "comparable reduction" could mean a similar percentage reduction from their current level. The argument already states "consumer behavior is similar," which addresses baseline similarity. Not the core assumption.

(E) Other factors DID cause the reduction (not the fee itself)
Does this destroy the argument? YES, completely! If the fee wasn't the cause of the \(40\%\) reduction in City X – if it was actually due to awareness campaigns, other environmental policies, or unrelated factors – then implementing just the fee in the new city won't produce the same results. The entire argument collapses because the causal link is broken.

Answer: (E)

Why This Feels Tricky:

Options (B) and (D) are strengtheners – they make the argument better but aren't strictly necessary for the logic to hold. The argument already implies similar implementation ("similar policy") and similar starting conditions ("similar consumer behavior").

Option (E) is different: it addresses causation, which is the foundation of the argument. The argument uses City X's experience to predict City Y's outcome. This only works if the fee caused the reduction in City X.

Key Distinction: Necessary assumptions are the minimum required for the argument to work. Strengtheners make it more convincing but aren't essential to the basic logic.

I hope this is clear enough now.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
494 posts
358 posts